Posted on 11/14/2006 1:22:03 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet
Not even the second parting of the Red Sea could convince me that you are not just using that as an excuse.
It just don't fly with me.
Fine.
No argument.
(3) Catholic criticism of historical Protestantism on FR does not involve elaborate conspiracy theories, alternate histories or other forms of raving lunacy.
That was actually the point of my post. Instead of "rightwing" criticism (which you have described), Catholic criticism of Protestant Fundamentalism always comes from the Left ("you people are so intolerant;" "unlike you, we Catholics believe all religions are equally beautiful," etc.) Does one have to be a Solange Hertz extremist in order to criticize Protestantism from the Right? This stubborn insistence on being to the "left" of Fundamentalist Protestantism is one of the things that made my own experience in the Catholic Church so uncomfortable.
It does involve harsh interpretations of the actual, recorded historical details of the lives of certain Reformers and the actual, historical record of Protestant regimes.
Then please do not complain when Jews (or Protestants) engage in harsh interpretations of the actual, recorded historical details of the lives of certain Catholic officials and the actual, historical record of Catholic regimes.
(4) Catholics do not make the claim that just because someone is a Reformed Christian they are, by definition, not really a Christian at all or that Protestantism is a non-Christian religion.
Actually, I have a magazine containing an article entitled "Is Protestantism Chr*stian?" The conclusion is in the negative. Nevertheless, I will grant that these are extreme ultra-traditionalists.
Protestants on these threads routinely claim that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are non-Christian religions.
There is a big moral difference there.
The difference is that such Protestant criticism is from the "right," while Catholic/Orthodox criticisms of Protestant "intolerance" are from the "left." Why would you defend such an attitude? Aren't there any Catholics out there (other than the Solange Hertz types) whose defense of Catholicism isn't "we're better than you because we don't think we're better than you?" That sounds like the ADL ragging on chr*stians!
(5) I am indeed heartily sick of Catholics on these threads who insult "rednecks" just as I am heartily sick of "conservatives" who insult Christians in general.
There is nothing Christian or conservative about looking down on rural Southerners who themselves are the archetype in real life of Christians and conservatives in this nation.
Unfortunately, this attitude is not going to change because "rednecks" are the one ethno-cultural group who are utterly unrepresented in the Catholic Church, nor is this likely to change. Many American Catholic spokesmen/apologists have made it plain that they define Catholicism primarily by its hostility to "fundamentalism" and its oppenness to "science" and intellectualism. The official Diocesan newspaper of my own diocese once ran an article saying that the Catholic Church would concentrate on converting "intellectuals" and leave non-intellectuals to the "fundamentalist churches" (what about all those illiterate peasants in Latin America?). This newspaper also once ran an article complaining that Fundamentalists would not allow the teaching of the documentary hypothesis in public schools (something the article was endorsing).
Finally, please put yourself in the shoes of these "intolerant" Protestants for just a moment. They read Paul shooting down the Torah and setting people "free" from the "law." They don't see any "new testament" text elucidating the laws and rituals of Catholicism. They draw the conclusion that the whole purpose of chr*stianity and its "freedom" is to be individually and eternally "saved." They see Catholics spending their entire lives trying to avoid damnation and ask themselves what the difference is between this religion and the Judaism that Paul condemned (except that the Judaism that Paul condemned is actually in the Bible!). If the purpose of chr*stianity is to provide a totally free antinomian "salvation" then Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not chr*stian. But if this notion of an antinomian salvation was never the purpose of chr*stianity (as the liturgucal churches maintain), then "faith only" Protestantism is not chr*stian, and Catholics should not be too liberal to say so. I for one would find such criticisms much less offensive than the continual "you people are bigots and we are open-minded and therefore better than you" that one encounters so often in contemporary Catholic apologetics.
Not at all.
The "right" criticism of Protestantism has always been that the Lutheran notion of private interpretation of Scripture apart from the Church's authority is the demonic sin of pride elaborated into a theological system.
If the first Whig was the devil, Luther was the second Whig.
This does not necessitate Hertz-style paranoia - it is simply a hard look at Luther's actions per se.
Then please do not complain when Jews (or Protestants) engage in harsh interpretations of the actual, recorded historical details of the lives of certain Catholic officials and the actual, historical record of Catholic regimes.
I don't. The problem arises when they mix fact and fiction.
The Spanish Inquistion really happened.
But when people say stuff like: "The Spanish Inquisition murdered three million devout Baptist believers in Spain" they are using a real historical fact as a springboard for a tissue of fantastical lies.
The reality of the Spanish Inquisition was bad enough on its face - it doesn't need to be exaggerated.
Was Pope Alexander VI a man who fathered four illegitimate children by his mistress and ran the Church as a personal military fiefdom instead of a spiritual trust?
Indeed he was.
There is no need to make up fake stories about orgies in the Vatican or Alexander committing incest or other nonsense - this is sheer titillation unrelated to history.
The historical facts of his career are enough to condemn him - there is no need to invent fantastical stories.
One has to wonder why the Church's opponents need to resort to such elaborate lies when the historical truth is sufficient for a reputable critique?
The difference is that such Protestant criticism is from the "right," while Catholic/Orthodox criticisms of Protestant "intolerance" are from the "left." Why would you defend such an attitude?
Protestant criticism is not "from the right" - it is from the left. In essence, the Protestant critique is to rail against the rightful authority of the Holy See using a combination of (a) carefully circumscribed Scriptural quotations torn from the context of the whole of the Scriptures and (b) outrageous lies colored with a slight tinge of historical fact to enhance plausibility.
These are techniques commonly employed by the Marxist left and by the moonbat Buchananite "right" (in quotes because I do not consider Buchananism to have anything to do with the right).
Catholic critiques of Protestantism from "the left" certainly exist, but such critiques are usually voiced by persons who simultaneously criticize the Holy See from the left on matters regarding contraception and celibacy.
This is a distraction from the larger point: the minimal definition of a Christian is a person who (a) believes in the Trinity and believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the second person of the Trinity who was also a natural man as well as (b) having been baptized in the name of the Trinity.
Any Protestant who claims that Catholics or Orthodox are not Christians is not only being personally insulting, they are also lying.
Which is immoral.
Catholics and Orthodox widely recognize that Protestants who fit the minimal definition are Christians, even if they are disobedient Christians.
Unfortunately, this attitude is not going to change because "rednecks" are the one ethno-cultural group who are utterly unrepresented in the Catholic Church, nor is this likely to change.
There is a significantly large number of Scots-Irish Southerners who are professed Catholics.
And they will grow in number.
Of course, by being Catholic they are less likely to intermarry solely with other "pure" Scots-Irish Southerners and are probably more likely to marry Irish-Irish and Italians and Germans who are Catholics and Yankees or recently-transplanted Yankees.
As long as there are Scots-Irish Southerners who insist on maintaining a distinct culture separate from all others, they will likely choose Fundamentalism as a cultural badge.
it becomes a chicken-or-the-egg argument.
If the purpose of chr*stianity is to provide a totally free antinomian "salvation" then Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not chr*stian.
Such errors arise from the sin of pride - the Pelagian belief, contrary to Scripture itself, that anyone can pick up a translation of the Scriptures and interpret them accurately in a vacuum.
It is, of course, a conceit to claim that Protestantism is devoid of rites. Each Protestant just makes up his own rites and practices and then claims they are not rites because they follow his own personal idiosyncracies upon which he has conferred Scriptural validity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.